SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1301, 2 December 1911, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

TDK RESISTING SHAREHOLDERSIN ROSS GOLDFIELDS, ; ; THAT CALL. IS POSTPONED. Something in tho nature of a settlement was arrived at yesterday iu the dispute between certain shareholders o£ tho Ros3 Goldfields, Lid., and tho directors' of tho company. Tho case first' camo be- • faro tho Court a. week ago, when (he shareholders applied for an injunction to restrain fhs directors from enforcing a call of la. struck on November 23 ami payable on December, 11—three days before a general meeting; 1 ■■■ ■ > •• That application was opposed by the, directors and after several adjournments, t.h6 ease came on amin yesterday before tho Chief Justice (fair Robert Stout). Mr, F. E. Petherick appeared for tho moving shareholders, and ilr. 0. H. Fell for the company. As soon as the action was. mentioned Mr. Fell stated that tho .directors had decided to adopt his Honour's recommendation and postpone payment of the call. What date would his Honour suggest? His Honour remarked that it had better be after the. mooting. Mr. Petherick then observed that a. call for Is. was unnecessary. His 'Honour suggested waiting. It could then • be, seeu. what -the meeting might say about .it • „ Mr. Petherick then . asked that ' the . motion be further adjourned. His Honour, agreed and expressed the hope that the matter would bo settled. Litigation could only injure the company. Mr. Fell: The directors will pass a resolution, postponing the date for the payment of the call until. December 18. Mr. Petherick: We may still want to set tho call aside. His Honour: I hope. the. other side will be aa conciliatory as the directors, and. be able to settle their differences. THE ACCOUNTS. MUST THEY. BE RENDERED ? . A preliminary action, in connection with the civil Case of Briggs v. Harcourt . and another, ■ was heatd in the supreme . Court yesterday belore tho Chief Justice (bir .Robert stout). 'Xho parties to the action were, Teresa Briggs, piaintilt, and - John Batemau Harcourt and Charles •• James btanwii; Harcourt, delendanls.' ' 'Mr. E. J. l'itzgibbon appeared lor tho giaiutiif and te. R (i. i ot the - tleienaants. : It aj/peared from the proceedings thai, on Alarcii Teresa briggs (as' admiuisuatl'ix oi Pnenix deceased) became the i-egistered proin'ieior of certain land in WeUington -and Marlborough. I'his land was to bo held in trust ror herself for life. ' After tho death oi leresa\ liriggs the property was to-pass on to tha three children of Phwiix liriggs.' 1 bmco' June, 1001, Teresa'Briggt had borrowed "moneys from J. B. "Harcourt and Co., on. tho security of the property, and Harcourt and Co. had collected the reiits aud'protits of the proParties menticlned in ■'their 'securities. . Certain of ,tho properties were subsequently sold through .Harcoiirt' aad Co., and the proceeds applied,to the credit of lerosa Briggs," in an 'account; with the firm. On July 7, 1910, Teroia Briggs becarne a.bankrupt at. Hokitilca,.and on Octobor 31, 1910, tho Official 'Assignee soul, to Harcourt and Cq." a notice, disclaiming the interest of ,the' bankrupt l in the properties', mortgaged to''tiiein". 'The discharge was granted "in March last. Tt--rtea Brings now -claimed, to. be entitled to ' an account from; Harcourt;Hm'd) C«.>ief a!i ■ moneys received-and v 'pai3' by tbcrn in connection propertios.cca prised in'their'securities:';* 'a Harcourt however, contended that they-had rendered full accounts, and that she was • not,.entitled -to 'an'; w conn; in respect of-jthe, period before ,'cr her baiucruptcy. ' It was agreed to. state a special casgf.for. .• the,.decision;of : th« • !. Coiirt, and wtro. - < submitted:— **. ; « Is.plaintiff c.ltitled'to any .n'tetest i( •the properties,in her wstateVitsclaim-' ed.by tho: Assignee? Assuming, that,, defendants nay®' net ai ; ■ ready, (accounted, is plaintiff eptitled to the, account claimed?>'; • .Was .the' ARsißiice, entitled „ to disclaim, "iln'd'is the di,»e!aimer valid? . ■Is the-Court, . under Section S4 t>f" fho , Bankruptcy "Act, entitled to • vest tho in\eroSti«) 'disclaimed' either "in plain- i " ) ; ,tifT of-defendants?. . : ,• • |, ? '•

After bra ring, argument, his Hononr reserved decision. ... .... -r- )\ 1 ' ~' IS IT RATEABLE? Vy" THE 1 i Whether or -.not -the - Wellington Hospital Board 'is liabk-lo* rates 011 tho Oliira Horns, w Epunijtroisft was the interest-: ■ ing question raisoavbofore the Chief Jus--1 tice (Sir RobertStout)-'iii\* the Supreme Court yesterday,- The'-parties- to the action were the" .-WellingtonHospital i Board, plaintiffs, and the AVellinjion City Council, defendants. Mr. W. F. Ward appeared for the , and the. City Solicitor (Mr. J. 0 Shea) for tho City Council. The Ohiro1 Home was formerly controlled by the Benevolent Trustees, but has , siueo bc-en handed .over to tho Wellington' Hospital Board.- The institution is Wd to provide a refuge for aged pejple of Doth sexes in needy circumstances end tho inmates are treated by the board's permanent medical staff free of charge. If their condition of health requires it they aro removed to the general hospital! and are there also treated fres of charue ' _By a demand on August 15, 191(1, the City Council demanded .£39 Bs. Id. for rates, being the first of two equal instalments for the year-ending March 31, , 1. ?? e l>oar(1 askod tho Court to . say whether or-not the amount *as due 'i ' se^d r <kS^ mCDt '' the